However, this was only a prelude to the accelerated growth that was to follow.  The years 1843 to 1847 saw a revolution in the history of life insurance marketing.  Beginning with the founding of the Mutual Life of New York in 1843, seven notable companies began business during this four-year period.  Each of them devoted itself exclusively to life underwriting and each made mutuality a prime element of its corporate character.  With them came a drastically more aggressive marketing program.

The founders of these companies were entrepreneurs of a new type. For one thing, they lacked the capital to form companies on the joint-stock plan. Without the substantial backing of stockholders they were compelled to induce people to become "shareholders" in the company by purchasing policies. (Under the mutual plan the policyowner was not only entitled to receive all the benefits of the policy, but also a proportionate share of the earnings of the company as well.)  It meant they had to find lots of buyers quickly, or their plans would come to naught. For this reason the new mutual companies were forced to employ aggressive marketing methods and devote themselves exclusively to life insurance. They needed "canvassers;" personal solicitation of business was essential to their success.*

Again, the time lag poses an interesting question. Why was the concept of mutuality so late in capturing the Americans' imagination when the British experience had proven its success long before? Founded in 1762, the  "Old Equitable" of London provided a long-standing model.  For some reason, no American found it worthy of imitation. Considering this point, Stalson comments:

The idea of mutual insurance had long been known to the major American life officers. They had, as we know, read about the Equitable of London, and they were acquainted with other English mutuals too. Our businessmen, however, were not always quick to adopt English business practices. Americans have learned from the mother country what it has pleased them to learn; they have imitated her only in practices which suited their immediate interests. We looked to England for guidance in establishing our banking system; we incorporated most of the English accounting method into our own system of keeping books; we built our manufacturing businesses upon foundation-stones supplied us by the English. Yet we were slow to accept the lesson of mutuality in insurance.  The success of the Equitable of London was apparent long before the close of the eighteenth century; we, however, waited several decades before establishing our own first mutual life company.[i]

Perhaps it is another instance of the right man coming on the scene with an idea whose time had come.  In the case of each of the companies founded in the 1840s the organizer was an entrepreneur convinced of the possibilities inherent in mutuality.  Suffice it to say that in Willard Phillips, founder of the New England Mutual Life Insurance Company, Morris Robinson, first president of the Mutual Life of New York, and Guy R. Phelps, founder of the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, along with several other pioneering spirits, American life insurance found men whose vision was in season with the times.

Clearly, they were men who acted on their convictions.  Having adopted a British model for organizing a company, they did not hesitate to employ its marketing method.  Because of them the agency system became standard for promoting life insurance in this country.  In doing so, they raised marketing to what Stalson calls "its third stage of initiative and intensity: they originated and made general the practice of calling at homes and offices, interrupting prospective buyers at work or play to urge the merits of life insurance upon them."[ii]

The effectiveness of personal solicitation quickly proved itself. In 1845, with about thirty-five agents operating in some dozen northeastern cities, the Mutual Life of New York, for instance, reported over $4 million of insurance in force, by 1850 sales had amounted to $ 40 million. In 1870 this company had $243 million in force. Having witnessed the success of the agency system, other companies, whether they were organized on the mutual plan or not, followed suit. The lesson was obvious. The companies that grew were the ones that established agency offices in the major cities.

One of the late bloomers that developed a formidable army of agents was the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, founded in 1859 by the twenty-five-year-old Henry Baldwin Hyde.  From the beginning, Hyde focused on acquiring agents adept at person-to-person selling.  The story is told that he once kept a director of the Society waiting for some time while he had a conference with one of his agents.  When informed that it was a director who was waiting, he said, "I can get a good director any time, but a good agent is another matter."

Hyde's brilliant record in aggressive marketing tactics soon eclipsed the British successes he admired so much.  With dozens of general agents and hundreds of subagents in the most populated regions of the country, the Equitable had become the largest life insurance company in the world by 1886.  On October 24, 1887, upon his return from Europe, his agents presented Hyde with $2,225,600 of applications as a welcome—a record for a single day.[iii]

In 1875, with the founding of the Prudential Insurance Company of America, in Newark, New Jersey, by John F. Dryden, another British import appeared on the American insurance market: the debit agent promoting industrial insurance. The name "industrial" insurance derives from its popularity among factory workers and shop employees in the great industrial cities of Britain and America where it was first marketed. With numerous hired agents assigned to specific neighborhoods or districts, endowment plans and modest policies (limited, generally, to providing death benefits) were sold to thousands of men and women among America's working classes.

A unique feature of this type of insurance was the mode of paying premiums in small weekly sums. Making their weekly rounds, the agents who sold these policies also collected the premium payments personally.  Usually salaried, debit agents did not derive their income from commissions primarily, as did ordinary agents. (The term "debit" refers to the amounts in premium payments each agent was supposed to collect in his district and for which he was held accountable to the company.) The Prudential held the field alone until joined by the Metropolitan of New York and Boston's John Hancock, which added industrial life insurance to their established ordinary businesses in 1879.

By 1890, when America's agents organized their national association, the general agency system was fully developed. There were sixty life insurance companies operating in the United States. In terms of their corporate character, twenty of these had been set up on the mutual plan; the rest were stock companies. The three leading companies, commonly called the Big Three, ranked by insurance in force, were: The Equitable ($721 million); Mutual Life of New York ($638 million); and New York Life ($569 million). The amount of life insurance written by United States companies that year came to $984,043,759.  Seventy-five percent of this was in the form of ordinary policies; the rest was in industrial insurance.  Virtually all these policies had been sold through the personal solicitation of patronage by agents.[iv]

With regional offices located in every major city, the general agents representing the larger life insurance companies employed subagents or "soliciting agents" who penetrated even the most remote communities throughout the country. The development of America's railroads had greatly facilitated their mobility. While not all were becoming rich, many found the promotion of life insurance a congenial way of making a comfortable living. In 1890 the Mutual Life of New York, for example, was allowing its general agents 45 percent to 65 percent first year commissions. The general agency rate to agents was 35 percent.[v] It was an occupation that satisfied the entrepreneur's taste for independence while it afforded an outlet for his gregarious nature and competitive spirit.  There were altruistic motives, too. This was a business where one could profit by enlightening one's fellow man, relieving him of concern for his financial future and his family's welfare.

It is not surprising that this era of commercial expansiveness and bustling confidence saw many personable, attractive young men of ambition and intelligence enter the field of life insurance soliciting. The business had even attracted a few enterprising women.  At the same time, growing more numerous and more ubiquitous, the agents began developing a sense of identity and occupational pride leading them to form associations of mutual support.  Through group effort the more enlightened and progressive agents sought to redress grievances, reform abuses and rid themselves of unworthy co-workers.  They envisioned a marketplace of healthy competition where well-informed agents conducted themselves as gentlemen.  Inspired with a desire for recognition as respected practitioners of a worthwhile business, these men hoped to introduce more refined sales techniques and uniformly high ethical practices into the field of life insurance marketing. In these cooperative efforts the agents often received encouragement and direction from leading figures in the insurance press.  Despite earlier failures, the seven years preceding the foundation of the NALU saw over a dozen societies of agents well established.  At the time of the Parker House meeting some half-dozen more were in the process of getting organized in various parts of the country.

Boston has the distinction of sustaining the oldest, continuously active life underwriters association.  It was organized in the offices of the Standard, at Ransom's invitation, on April 18, 1883.  From its first monthly meeting on May 18, the Boston association was a pronounced success and served as a model for other life underwriters associations.

Life insurance agents had made a number of attempts to organize before the Bostonians established a permanent association, but none of them were able to sustain themselves beyond a few years.  Nevertheless, these efforts demonstrated the need for agents to cooperate, as well as the difficulties involved.  The earliest effort in that direction occurred in Chicago in 1869.  Harris Proschansky, author of The National Association of Life Underwriters: Its First Forty Years, explains the circumstances leading to its formation:

It was an outgrowth of a temporary organization set up by various life underwriters to promote legislation that would protect legitimate legal reserve companies in Illinois from the depredations of fraudulent companies.  These had been formed for the purpose of swindling policyholders and had embittered the public against life insurance.

On December 15, 1868, the Northwestern Review had urged the formation of a "permanent and well ordered board of life agents in Chicago."  The Chronicle made a similar suggestion on September 23, 1869.  Referring to the weakening of public confidence in life insurance institutions, the trade journal declared that agents were largely responsible.  While the primary purpose of an association would be to rid the profession of unworthy agents, it would also serve as an educational force and as a means of bringing the sales men of life insurance closer together.

Inspired by his editorial, various life underwriters previously active in the campaign for legislation directed against fraudulent companies met in Chicago on October 4, 1869 to form a life underwriters association.  A committee was appointed to draft a plan of organization, and empowered to extend an invitation to all the life underwriters of Chicago to join the proposed group.  On October 11, 1969, there was a second meeting at which the Life Underwriters' Association of Chicago was formally organized, and officers were elected.[vi]

Proschansky draws attention to an interesting provision in its rules and regulations which stipulated, "No subject which involves or provokes discussion of rival plans or companies shall be introduced into the meetings..." Less discreet was the resolution adopted at a meeting on November 8, 1869, directing all members of the association to submit a list of names of any agents who had been in their employ and who had proved themselves unworthy of confidence.

Not everyone approved of agents organizing in this way:

Stephen English, colorful editor of the Insurance Times, published in New York, denounced it as a conspiracy of the local life companies, "whose officers and agents expect by thus combining their frail corporations with solid Eastern companies to reduce both to the same level and persuade the public to believe that there is no essential difference between them."

The Chronicle, then published in Chicago, rushed to the defense of the group, and denied categorically that it was formed by local life companies.  It claimed that its staunchest and most enthusiastic members were among the agents of "solid Eastern companies," and described it as a most worthy organization.[vii]

Evidently enthusiasm was not sufficiently general in Chicago.  After a meeting to discuss "the best method of employing solicitors," on December 4, 1969, there is no mention of any further meetings.  The Chronicle of June 23, 1870, asked, "Where is the Life Underwriters' Association of Chicago?"  It can be surmised that the group had already passed out of existence.

St. Louis and Cincinnati also witnessed meetings of life insurance agents that year.  Formed in response to an immediate problem, these two groups disbanded once they accomplished their ends.  Agents in St. Louis met in early 1869 to consider the need for laws curbing fraudulent companies.  They formed a committee and "with a liberal supply of the sinews of lobby war" (from the well-established companies), succeeded in getting their bill through the Missouri legislature on March 4, 1869.  (Chauncey Ransom was a member of this committee.)  The Cincinnati agents met on September 22 to initiate a movement to amend the insurance law of Ohio but there is no evidence that an underwriters association resulted from this campaign either.

During the following year, however, agents in Pittsburgh did attempt to form a life underwriters association. According to the August 1870 issue of the Baltimore Underwriter, they sought to provide "mutual protection against the swindling solicitors who systematically rob the profession and bring discredit upon its work." Among other things, they planned to maintain a list of agents, medical examiners, and others guilty of unethical practices. Like the Chicago group, this association disintegrated shortly after its formation.

In the West the story was the same.  Agents in San Francisco met at offices of the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company that summer to form an association.  They adopted a constitution and elected officers, but by year's end the organization was no longer active.  In Wisconsin occurred the first attempt to establish a statewide association.  Describing its swift collapse at an association meeting years later, one of the organizers, Dr. S.L. Fuller, provides some insight into why these groups failed to endure:

We organized and then proceeded to dine.  During the dinner it became apparent that we were all afraid of each other, too much afraid even to adjust our differences, or to cooperate in any degree, and soon the meeting was at an end, and that association died "a bornin'," while your humble servant, who had been made secretary, was given the undisputed privilege of paying for the dinner.[viii]

Agents in Ohio had more success than the others in getting associations to last beyond a meeting or two.  On May 27, 1872, at the invitation of Robert L. Douglas, general agent of the Charter Oak Life Insurance Company, some of the more prominent general agents of Cincinnati met to organize a life underwriters association. (Douglas was also a local correspondent of the Baltimore Underwriter and was most active in promoting and demonstrating the need for a society of agents in Cincinnati.  Proschansky says "He was also the key figure in the committee which drafted the constitution and by-laws of the organization.")

The announced purpose of the group was "to maintain the honor and dignity of the business of life insurance, to cultivate social intercourse and acquaintance among the members of the profession, to increase their efficiency in the business, and to rid the profession of those leeches that prey upon the earnings of other and better men."[ix] Meanwhile, agents in Cleveland organized an association, adopting the same constitution and bylaws as the Cincinnati men.  If Douglas was not the founder of this group, he certainly took an active interest in its affairs.

Both these organizations blacklisted offending members, making public the names of those found guilty of unethical practices by expulsion or suspension of membership.  For a while their tactics seemed effective and drew wide support from the local agents.  Proschansky comments, "The Cincinnati Association had a large and interested membership.  By October, 1872, it was reported that sixty were members; nearly every general, special, and district agent of Cincinnati was reported to be a member."  The association in Cleveland flourished with equal vigor, having a membership of thirty-five by September 1873.[x]

Thus encouraged, Douglas and his colleagues initiated a move to establish a state association.  Representatives from the Cincinnati and Cleveland associations met at Columbus in February and in April 1873, and succeeded in setting up a framework for the Life Underwriters' Association of Ohio.  Through its Grievance and Legislative committees this organization proved surprisingly effective in bringing about a number of reforms affecting the life insurance business in Ohio.

The example of the Ohio men encouraged those in other regions.  Agents in Richmond, Virginia, sometime in 1872, formed a group known as the Life Underwriters' Association of Virginia.  Its constitution and bylaws were largely patterned after that of Cincinnati.  Late that same year the Memphis Life Underwriters' Association was organized.  Another group, the Life  Underwriters' Association of St. Joseph, Northeastern Missouri, and Doniphan County, Kansas, was organized on March 17, 1873.  "It apparently was closely modeled on that of the Cincinnati Association,"  Proschansky comments, "since a statement of its aims was worded in the exact language of that body."  In Maine, agents met to organize a state association in March 1873.  None of these organizations survived beyond a year or two, however.

Proschansky also relates the history of an attempt to establish a regional association:

On August 19-21, 1874, a meeting of life insurance agents of the seven Southern states took place at Bath Aulm Springs, Virginia.  The men were from North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, Tennessee, and West Virginia. As a result of this meeting, there was formed the Life Underwriters' Association of the Southern States. The constitution and by-laws were quite similar to those of the Ohio Association.  This was the first known regional organization.  According to Ransom, it met again in July, 1875, at Beersheba Springs, Tennessee.  It appears to have passed out of existence shortly after this meeting.[xi]

Douglas was elected president of the Ohio Association at its second annual meeting on June 10, 1874, at Put-in-Bay, Ohio, and reelected the following year. By this time membership had reached one hundred.  In the months following, the association continued to have some impact on legislation.  However, this was their high-water mark. During the next several years support waned. As apathy set in and membership dropped, Douglas and his colleagues watched their influence at the state capital evaporate. In Cincinnati, the agents held their last meeting on June 16, 1877, voting to dissolve and to merge with the state association. By this time, agents in Cleveland could no longer rally enough support to continue operations, either. Shortly after their sixth annual convention, held at Put-in-Bay in August 1878, the Ohio Association ceased to be active. [xii]

All commentators agree: The most serious miscalculation of the Ohio Association leadership was a reliance on high-handed tactics.  Uncompromising and impatient for reform, their zeal blinded them to reality.  Alluding to these early failures, Charles W. Scovel, then president of the NALU, commented at an association gathering in Portland, Maine, in 1906, "Many associations have been founded at various times in various towns only to split on that rock of trying to stop abuses by direct, drastic action; trying to make the associations into legislatures, courts and executioners."[xiii]

Proschansky offers some additional reasons for the dissolution of the Ohio associations:

The impact of the depression which had enveloped the country since 1873 made itself felt in the next year.  Not only did agents leave the field but those who remained were tempted, in the heat of competition, to the same improper practices that they, as members of the Association, were pledged to combat...

Another fundamental reason for failure of the Ohio Association was that it did not have the strength, financial and otherwise, to carry out its objectives.  A notable example was the fight against obnoxious legislation.  Having but little assistance from life insurance companies, the Association did not have the financial means to set up a permanent staff at the state capital at Columbus to keep a wary eye on legislation.  Their aims were laudable, but they neglected the organizational setup required to effect them....

Finally, an obstacle to its success was the failure to cultivate social ties among the members.  This might account in large part for the apathy of the bulk of the members, who increasingly lost interest in an organization, which neglected the social side.  Sole emphasis on business and reform was not exactly conducive to the kindling of the sustained interest necessary for the success of a trade association.[xiv]

Nevertheless, while they flourished the Ohio associations made lasting contributions toward raising the ethical standards of the business.  Their accomplishments inspired other agents to organize at the time, and their failures taught valuable lessons to future life underwriters associations.

With their demise, the association movement came to a halt.  In an atmosphere of cutthroat competition, pressure to produce outweighed all other considerations.  The fine points of business etiquette and legislative reforms were not paramount concerns among most agents.  There was even less enthusiasm for socializing with competitors.  The Chicago agents made another attempt to form an association in 1881, but never progressed beyond a meeting or two.  After that, interest in agents' associations remained dormant until the spring of 1883 when the cautious Bostonians methodically set about to establish their organization on a firm foundation.  At the first meeting twenty-five men signed up for membership.  Cornelius G. Atwood was chosen president and George Carpenter became secretary.  Building on the experience of the past fifteen years, they created a workable model for a durable life underwriters association.

One striking difference between this organization and its predecessors was the emphasis on the social element.  There was no blacklisting or other constraints to whip members into line.  The approach was to build a closely-knit organization through firm friendships and mutual understanding before attempting any ambitious schemes for reform.  Even so, their avowed purpose was to effect change.  As they announced at their formation, the ultimate goal was "to advance the great interest of life insurance, protect its growth by stimulating healthy legislation and to prevent, as far as possible. The passage of unjust laws and to encourage whatever will redound to the general good of the cause."[xv]

For three years the Bostonians remained the sole fellowship of agents cooperating to bring about improved business practices.  There is little doubt that others were watching their movements closely.  Ransom's widely distributed paper, the Standard, dutifully recorded all the activities of the Boston Association throughout the 1880's.  They gave splendid dinners to which they invited other representatives of the business community.  In this way the Boston agents established close ties with the city's leading bankers, doctors, clergymen, governmental officials and officers of insurance companies.  They listened to lectures on the proper conduct of business and aired their views on subjects of general interests, but they eschewed controversy.

John E. De Witt,  president of the Union Mutual Life Insurance Company, who attended some of the early meetings, was impressed with "how cautious the members of the new organization were not to introduce into the meetings... any of the unpleasant activities incident to the competition then existing in the business, for fear of an early dissolution of the association; their first business was to become acquainted with one another, not as enemies in business, but as men prosecuting an honest vocation in the community in an honorable way.  Later on, the disagreeable subjects were taken up one by one, and discussed in a friendly spirit and conservative manner".[xvi]

In 1886 the first seeds of the Boston Association began to take root.  J.H. Knapp, Connecticut Mutual's general agent in Pittsburgh, and J.C. Bergstresser, editor of the Insurance World, a trade journal published in Pittsburgh, succeeded in organizing the agents of Pittsburgh on March 16.  On October 2 agents in Detroit formed the Michigan Life Insurance Agents' Association.  The next month saw two other associations formed:  one in St. Paul and one in Buffalo.

Meanwhile, some prominent general agents and managers in New York City had been busy organizing an association.  At a meeting held on January 10, 1887, they adopted a constitution and by laws and elected a slate of officers; Colonel Charles H. Raymond, general agent of the Mutual of New York, was chosen president.  Two weeks later a group of ten met in Portland, Maine, to form a life underwriters association.  Though the exact date of their organization is unknown, life underwriters in Baltimore had already formed an association by March 1887, when they signed a compact to refrain from unethical business practices.  The ninth unit to join the ranks was the fifty-eight-member Philadelphia Life Underwriters' Association, founded on December 12, 1887.  Only one association was organized in 1888 at Kansas City, Missouri, on October 26.  The next year there were three: the Chicago, Cleveland and New Hampshire Associations, in the early months of 1890.**

Although the Boston model was gaining widespread acceptance, the atmosphere pervading the marketplace still inhibited many agents from cooperating readily and openly.  Getting these men together was not always easy.  One of the founding members of the Philadelphia Association, Joseph Ashbrook, described their first meeting when he addressed the organizers of the NALU at the Parker House:

When about three years ago the life insurance agents of Philadelphia, by courtesy of the Philadelphia companies, were invited to meet at the Bellevue Hotel to discuss the question of the formation of a life insurance organization, I, who had been connected with the business in that city a quarter of a century, and I think I may claim that my conduct has been such as not to produce any especial degree of alienation between myself and others, it was necessary that I should be introduced to many of the representatives of the companies present on the occasion.  Such a condition of things was at once unnatural and absurd...In Philadelphia, the agents, I believe, will compare favorably with the agents of any other city in this country in point of high moral character, in point of intelligence and in point of efficiency as life insurance workers.  They are honorable men, intelligent men, effective men, and there was not special reason why the agents of Philadelphia should display this spectacle of alienation.  And yet it is likely that other gentlemen like myself found themselves in that room strangers to half or two thirds of the gentlemen present.[xvii]

Gradually, the barriers began to give away.  In city after city restraints relaxed, hostility subsided, and inhibitions disappeared.  By June 1890 the momentum of goodwill and optimism was sufficiently general to justify organization on a national scale.  As Blodgett had put it to the delegates, "The time was ripe."

From the beginning, most of these agent organizations called themselves "life underwriters' associations." But not everyone was entirely comfortable with the term. Agents in New York, for example, chose the name "life insurance association," while those in Detroit organized as the Michigan Life Insurance Agents' Association. That the question was still unsettled became apparent at the opening session of the Parker House meeting when the proposed constitution was under discussion. George Haskell and Alva Brown of New York objected to term "underwriter," arguing that it really applied to companies not to agents. But the Philadelphians, Ashbrook and Lippincott, insisted that the term was already in general usage as synonymous with agents. Ashbrook asserted that it was sufficiently general to encompass all representatives of life insurance companies, but not so vague as Haskell's suggestion that the organization be called "The National Life Insurance Association." Besides, Ashbrook thought "underwriter" sounded better. "It gives us latitude," he said, adding, "It is a little more sonorous. That is all."

Haskell's motion was defeated by a great majority.

High on the list of matters taken up by the organizers of the NALU was paying tribute to Colonel Ransom, who was conspicuously present that morning at the Parker House.  Since he was not a life underwriter, acknowledging the debt required an amendment to the constitution.  It was Ashbrook who, in a very moving speech, nominated Ransom an honorary member of the new organization, as the one responsible for "having given the initiative to that great movement which has resulted in the assemblage of these men here today." Looking on the long struggle to organize the agents, Ashbrook said:

We had come to stand apart, and failed to recognize a community of interests....

Eight years ago, a man well know to us, a man conspicuous for many noble qualities...believed that there was no cause why this unnatural condition should be perpetuated;...that it was possible to bring life insurance agents together; to unite them by social bonds, and with one swoop to destroy forever the alienations which separated them.

His amendment was unanimously adopted "by a rising vote."

The delegates were keenly aware of others in the room who had a hand in their formation and this is reflected in their choice of officers.  Besides making Carpenter president, they chose Benjamin S. Calef of Boston, chairman of the Executive committee, and William Ratcliffe of New York, treasurer.  Plummer was named secretary.  One of the youngest men present, this polished Philadelphian was to prove an unobtrusive, but steadying force for the fledgling organization.  Continuing to serve as secretary for the next four years, Plummer was elected president for 1895-96, while yet in his thirties.

There was also the question of regional pride to be satisfied.  This had been anticipated in the constitution, which provided for each association having a seat on the Executive Committee. A further solution was found in giving the title "vice president" to a delegate from each of the fourteen associations.

During the second day of meetings, the men continued their deliberations, sharing their views on major concerns affecting their business and expressing the hope that their numbers would increase.  The morning session began with an inspirational talk given by the Honorable Carlton B. Lewis of New York who spoke on the social value of life insurance.  When the questions of where to hold the next convention arose, Detroit, Chicago and New York all offered to host the meeting, the delegates giving cogent reasons why their respective cities were most suitable.  Finally it was agreed to met the following year in Detroit.

Foreword by Alan Press, 1988-1989 NALU President

Preface by Jack E. Bobo, 1989 NALU Executive Vice President

Introduction

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1

Laying the Foundation—A Meeting at the Parker House

Leading Figures—Ransom, Carpenter, Blodgett and Plummer

Conditions Leading to the Foundation of the NALU

Rise of Modern Life Insurance and the General Agency System

Issues and Accomplishments of the First 15 Years

Chapter 2

In the Wake of the Armstrong Investigation

A Royal Commission Investigates Life Insurance Operations in Canada

A Period of Growth and Visibility for the NALU Under Strong Leadership

The NALU Plays a Leading Role in Insurance Education

The NALU During World War I

Chapter 3

The Post-War Decade

The NALU's Extension of Activity

The Agents Move for Recognition

Chapter 4

The Depression and Aftermath

Annual Conventions and Midyear Meetings

The NALU Celebrates Its 50th Anniversary

Chapter 5

The Agents Earn Their Wings

World War II

The NALU Joins the Industry in Legislative Battles

The NALU Establishes the National Quality Award

Chapter 6

Controversies and Schisms (1946-1956)

The Foundation of LUTC

The Nola Patterson Affair

GAMC Formally Organized

Chapter 7

The NALU Goes to Washington

Dispute Over Minimum Deposit Insurance Plans

GAMC Stages First LAMP Meeting

The NALU Celebrates Its Diamond Jubilee Year

The NALU Increases Political Activity

U.S. Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee Investigate Life Insurance

The NALU Responds to Consumerist Activism

Chapter 8

The NALU Reaches the Century Mark

FTC Releases a Study Critical of the Insurance Industry

Formation of the Women Life Underwriters Conference

Drop in Local Membership

The NALU Issues Statements on AIDS

The NALU Combats a New Wave of Attacks

The NALU Celebrates a Century of Service

Open Book

Short Takes

Book Marks

*The seven mutuals were: Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (N.Y.C); New England Mutual Life Insurance Company (Boston); New York Life Insurance Company (N.Y.C.); Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company (Newark); State Mutual Life Insurance Company (Worcester); Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance company (Hartford); Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company (Philadelphia).

**Establishing the order of local associations by age can be somewhat confusing because a number of them disbanded for a time in the 1890s, then reformed later. Providence, Rhode Island, and Baltimore, Maryland, for instance, were well represented at the founding of the NALU and at the first several conventions. From 1895 to 1901, however, no delegation from Baltimore appeared at the NALU conventions. The unit reorganized on November 27, 1900, putting it 26^th in the order of local associations in continuous existence. Similarly, Providence sent no delegates to the NALU conventions from 1893 to 1899. "The Life Underwriters' Association of Rhode Island," however, appeared among the delegations at the national convention in 1900. The following year the Providence Life Underwriters Club joined the national Association, giving its date of origin as May 31, 1901. Consequently, it was listed as the 29^th oldest association that time.

The most reliable source for determining the anniversaries of the older units is the "Tabulated Report of Local Associations," compiled by the Statistics Committee and published with the Proceedings of the NALU annual conventions from 1893 to 1920.

[i] Ibid., p 109

[ii] Ibid., p. 157

[iii] R. Carlyle Buley, The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States: 1859-1964 (in two volumes), Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1967. Vol. I, p.330

[iv] Stalson, Op. Cit., Appendices 16 and 17, pp. 801-806.

[v] Ibid., p. 523.

[vi] Harris Proschansky, Ph.E., The National Association of Life Underwriters: Its First Forty Years (1890-1930), New York University, N.Y., pp. 55-57

[vii] Ibid., p. 58.

[viii] Ibid., p. 63

[ix] Insurance Index, June 1872. Cf. Proschansky, p. 67.

[x] Proschansky, Op. Cit., p.69

[xi] Ibid., pp. 90-93

[xii] Ibid., pp. 83-87.

[xiii] Life Association News, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 3.

[xiv] Proschansky, Op.cit., pp. 88, 88, and 89.

[xv] LAN, November 1908, p. 4.

[xvi] Proschansky,Op. Cit.,pp. 94

[xvii] Proceedings, 1890, p. 64

Top     LEGAL NOTICES     Contact Webmaster    

Change/Renew NAIFA Membership     Get Advisor Today: Join NAIFA

© Advisor Today 2003. All Rights Reserved.